Why shouldn't any elected official who is convicted of knowingly and deliberately breaking any law be forced from office?

Not trying to play gotcha, I'm serious interested in why you would think someone who will not abide by the rules of society should continue to help make or enforce those rules.

Call me old-fashioned, but I think it's bad conduct to pay for a woman to have sex.

Why is it OK to bribe women to have sex with expensive gifts, meals, entertainment and so forth but not OK for a straight quid pro quo?

I honestly don't understand this attitude. Most men pay for sex one way or another, that is the ultimate objective of the majority of mating rituals in which humans engage, most of which involve the man enticing the woman in some way with some sort of purchased items.

"Ever lived in a country where prostitution is legal?"

I have, and do Tina. It's called Australia and while laws vary from stste to state, here in Sydney (NSW) it's been legal for decades. Just up the road from my place is Kings Cross, Australia's most famous prostitution precinct. Female, male and transgendered prostitutes work in brothels and on certain streets throughout the neighbourhood. The situation of prostitution you describe in Europe doesn't remotely resemble what I see daily, and have done for many years.

"danger was always inherent in the job, union or no union"

The brothels here (where 70% of prostitutes work) mainly have excellent on site security, and anyone in the street behaving dangerously or violently towards a prostitute (or anyone else) tends to get arrested fairly quickly. Because it isn't illegal the prostitutes & brothels are able to call the police should any trouble arise. Just like any other business, or individual, they are protected by law from assault or coercion. It seems to me that the inherent danger to which you refer is far more likely to occur when prostitution is criminalised & the workers are unable/unwilling to call the police.

"Prostitution will always be in the shadows...nobody wants to tell their girlfriends or moms where they're going. As such it will always be secretive and dangerous for the prostitutes as well, always at night..."

The male and female prostitutes here, currently soliciting in broad daylight in parkland surroundings certainly don't appear to be working in shadowy, dangerous, secrecy. At night they work on brightly lit streets, mingling with the tourists and locals. While I don't, as it happens, engage in their services, I've come to know many of the regular street workers and they generally seem as well, happy, shame-free as (and rather more attractive than) most of their neighbouring office workers, like me. Like Mona I've also known more than a few (male & female) prostitutes who worked in brothels & their worst complaints are boredom and the absence of clients.

"Instead of arguing that this disgusting treatment of women be accepted, why not argue that men be taught to respect women enough not to buy them."

Why is it "disgusting" to pay a woman (or man) for sex? Isn't it the same as performing any other service for money? If not, why not? How is it "disrespectful" to pay a woman or a man for a service they willingly perform at a pre-agreed price? As for you inference that men are somehow "buying" the women and men that perform such service, that's just nonsensical. If you pay a cleaner, chef or model for their professional services, are you buying them as well? If not, why not? Paying for a service isn't purchasing the service-provider, regardless of whether the service is cooking, cleaning, modeling, or having sex. To argue that paying cooks, cleaners or models is either disrespectful or disgusting is obviously nonsense. Why is payment for "the oldest profession" any different?

It seems to me that criminalisation and moralistic condemnation of prostitution are the primary causes of the "danger", "shadows", "secrecy", "disgust" and "disrespect" you so rightly decry. Exploitation and coercion are very real risks for many workers, of both genders, in many industries. Regulation, legal protection and unionisation have consistently benefited at-risk workers in both sex and many other industries.

I can fully understand that you personally find prostitution repugnant and worry (justifiably) that in many situations it can be expoitative of, and dangerous to, the women (and men) who work in that field. Decades of observation & living amidst legal prostitution has vividly shown me that its dangers can be enormously reduced when criminalisation is eliminated and moralistic condemnation, however well-intended, decreases.

What is really disheartening is the appalling lack of perspective: what's more morally reprehensible and outrageous, Spitzer's hypocrisy or the trashing of the U.S. Constitution by this same justice department?

(My apologies if others have already made this point.) "Who cares...?" Well privately, not many. But publicly, yes, many/most of us do. With all respect, living as you seem to in your (very small) amoral community, this must come as a shock. And I sympathize, genuinely. It seems petty...but I assure you it's not.

Most of us in the rest of the whole world understand our laws to be expressions of morality and/or just best practice. The idea of "victimless crimes" reduces human beings to bodies without hearts/souls, and our community to disconnected individuals. The majority’s opinion has (thankfully?) changed on certain matters, but the principle remains: Gay sex, adultery, and the like were all against the law because they were (and still are, by many) considered to be "hurtful" not only to those engaged in them or personally affected by them, but to the community as a whole. Surely you don't think that normalizing, legitimizing pornography has had a positive effect overall on our society. So we had/have laws against various things to express that "we don't like that, and don't approve that, even if yes we regrettably do engage in that from time to time." Hypocrisy - maybe. But more likely the humble recognition that I as an individual am better to live my best with the benefit of communal values expressed. BUT & AND, we rarely enforced these laws. This is what the elite willfully misunderstand: Just because people are rarely prosecuted doesn't mean that the laws are meaningless. (If the laws weren't important statements, no one would have agitated to change them or strike them down. Jaywalking and public drinking are still illegal, right? Sodomy is not.) We "selectively prosecute/d" these crimes in such a way as to preserve the moral nature of our public life without unduly burdening ourselves and our police with ALL our sins. (I'm a black man from America living abroad, and I'm aware of the grave dangers in selective prosecution, but it's an unavoidable necessity.)

I'm sorry for Mr. Spitzer. But yes, we expect our leaders to be closer to "paragons of virtue and wisdom" than the rest of us. That's in part why we elect them -- they're not just doing a "job," they're meant to inspire us to our highest selves. Unfaithfulness to your spouse is not even close to our aspiration, and the stupidity involved in getting caught makes it even worse. Thus, when Eliot or Bill cheats, they are rightly condemned by the community, and when/if they get caught, they rightly risk losing their position. Forgive me, but only those with a sorely impoverished view of community life are unable to see this. It's quite elementary actually: Voters' moral failings are dealt with on a family, faith-community, neighborhood level. The elected's exposed sins must be handled with public disapproval and sanction. This is how we teach ourselves and our children. The phrase "role-model" still means something. And as every wronged spouse knows by heart: Forgiveness is one thing, but trust is another. That goes for the public trust too.